-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Which option is better for performance?
This is my situation today:
1 Physical server whit w2008 R2 + Veeam B&R 6.0.0.181, direct connected via FC to SAN.
4 VM Veeam Proxy whit w2008 R2 (hot add enabled, transport mode "virtual appliance")
4 LUNs at SAN to store backup data
The question is, wich configuration offer better performance?
a) Backup repositories as drives of the physical server, connected to the LUNs of the SAN?
or
b) Backup repositories as local drives of the backup proxys? (one for each proxy)
I read a lot, including the F.A.Q., but i´m not sure which of thid two alternatives is better.
What do you think about?
Thanks in andvance and sorry for my poor english.
Nicolas.
1 Physical server whit w2008 R2 + Veeam B&R 6.0.0.181, direct connected via FC to SAN.
4 VM Veeam Proxy whit w2008 R2 (hot add enabled, transport mode "virtual appliance")
4 LUNs at SAN to store backup data
The question is, wich configuration offer better performance?
a) Backup repositories as drives of the physical server, connected to the LUNs of the SAN?
or
b) Backup repositories as local drives of the backup proxys? (one for each proxy)
I read a lot, including the F.A.Q., but i´m not sure which of thid two alternatives is better.
What do you think about?
Thanks in andvance and sorry for my poor english.
Nicolas.
-
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 21069
- Liked: 2115 times
- Joined: Jul 11, 2011 10:22 am
- Full Name: Alexander Fogelson
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Are we talking about the same device here? Please note that backing up to the same device where the actual VMs data is stored is not considered a good practice.nreutemann wrote:1 Physical server whit w2008 R2 + Veeam B&R 6.0.0.181, direct connected via FC to SAN.
4 LUNs at SAN to store backup data
From the performance perspective, there should not be a noticeable difference. The second option is easier to configure and allows for data saved locally in VMDK, while with the first approach you can use the physical proxy with direct SAN access, which generally can be a bit faster than hotadd, so the backup performance should be comparable.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Yes, is the same device. But, my SAN is a FC SAN, with 2 x IBM DS3400. I got 4 LUNs to store backups files, 2 on each storage and located on separated RAIDs.foggy wrote: Are we talking about the same device here? Please note that backing up to the same device where the actual VMs data is stored is not considered a good practice.
From the performance perspective, there should not be a noticeable difference. The second option is easier to configure and allows for data saved locally in VMDK, while with the first approach you can use the physical proxy with direct SAN access, which generally can be a bit faster than hotadd, so the backup performance should be comparable.
I take backups of VMs located on storage A and store it on storage B and visceversa. And, when the backup job finish, the files are saved to tape.
So, the best option is to configure the 4 repositories on the physical server, no?
-
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 21069
- Liked: 2115 times
- Joined: Jul 11, 2011 10:22 am
- Full Name: Alexander Fogelson
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Yes, I would go with this option to avoid storing backup files on VMFS volumes.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Right, but I was thinking on RDM no VMFS.foggy wrote:Yes, I would go with this option to avoid storing backup files on VMFS volumes.
I made probes to access (not simultaneously) to an RDM LUN from a VM and the physical server. I tried to copy data to the LUN from de VM and after that, refresh the "disk managment" on the other side, re-map de disk and the data copied is available to de physical server. I tried this on both directions and works.
Anyway, I will follow your advice (for performance reasons, thats the only thing that matters here).
Thanks.
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31459
- Liked: 6648 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Yes, RDM in physical mode makes a perfect backup target.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Thanks Gostev, that`s my idea. But if the performance remains similar, I will prefer attach the LUNs to the physical server to simplify the schema.Gostev wrote:Yes, RDM in physical mode makes a perfect backup target.
-
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 481
- Liked: 57 times
- Joined: Jun 16, 2009 1:23 pm
- Full Name: Rich Brambley
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
I think Foggy's point is to not keep your backups on your production SAN. If you lose the SAN you've lost your production VMs and backups. RDM or VMFS. Make sure you have an archive copy somewhere else at least. That way Veeam can do instant restores, etc.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Yes, all backup´s files are copied to tape after job´s end.rbrambley wrote:I think Foggy's point is to not keep your backups on your production SAN. If you lose the SAN you've lost your production VMs and backups. RDM or VMFS. Make sure you have an archive copy somewhere else at least. That way Veeam can do instant restores, etc.
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31459
- Liked: 6648 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
The performance should be identical, I see no reason why it will be different.nreutemann wrote:Thanks Gostev, that`s my idea. But if the performance remains similar, I will prefer attach the LUNs to the physical server to simplify the schema.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
I was thiking if I hot-add the disc to the proxy and backup the data to the LUN is more efficient than send the data to de physical server and there copy it to the repository.Gostev wrote: The performance should be identical, I see no reason why it will be different.
Maybe I´m not completely understood the "data movement" in the two scenarios.
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31459
- Liked: 6648 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Sorry, I assumed that physical server will also be used as the backup proxy connected directly into SAN fabric to enable directs SAN access mode processing (since this is pretty much the only reason why people use physical servers with Veeam). And when proxy and repository are on the same server, there is no data movement over the network.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 47
- Liked: 6 times
- Joined: Mar 06, 2012 11:45 pm
- Full Name: Nicolas Reutemann
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
My infrastructure is this:Gostev wrote:Sorry, I assumed that physical server will also be used as the backup proxy connected directly into SAN fabric to enable directs SAN access mode processing (since this is pretty much the only reason why people use physical servers with Veeam). And when proxy and repository are on the same server, there is no data movement over the network.
1 physical server (IBM x3650 M2 with direct access to SAN via FC) with w2008 R2 + Veeam B&R 6
4 VMs as veeam proxys
The SAN has 2 x IBM DS3400
I made some test and, from my point of view, this configuration performs better than without proxys.
At this moment, the backup repositories are configured at physical server.
Looking to improve performance, born in my head the idea of attach the repositories directly to the proxy instead the physical server. That´s the reason of the born of this thread.
-
- Chief Product Officer
- Posts: 31459
- Liked: 6648 times
- Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
- Location: Baar, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: Wich option is better for performance?
Makes perfect sense.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests